Sal Paolantonio opinion - agree or not?

[tuckeverlasting]

overrated

namath-check
favre-check
bradshaw- don't think so
stabler- not so much
romo-getting there

revised overrated

namath
favre
mannings
rivers
pennington

 

[Ring 6]

this is actually a very good point, I concede you are on to something. traditional stats are limited in that they view all yards as equal. we all know that a 6 yard pass on 3rd and 5 is much better than a 6 yard pass on 3rd and 8, but traditional stats dont capture this.

this is why stats like DPAR and DVOA, from Football Outsiders, are much better - they capture then When and the Situation, not just the What. they also adjust for strength of schedule in the end, it gives you a better objective perfomance measurement.

unfortunately, compiling these stats is manually intensive, and they currently only have data back as far as the mid 90's.

still, in the absence of advanced metrics, "traditional" stats do a better job of capturing performance than subjective memories of 30 years ago.

But I think the actual result is a better measure than stats, which are equally as subjective as memory. (Especailly to different eras)

Put it this way:

QB A played well enough that his team won 4 SBs in 6 years.
QB B never won a playoff game.

To me that adds up to QBA doing what needed to be done for his team to be Champions. (4 times is about 1000 times more compelling than one) QB B did not. Rather than try to judge by statistics whether someone else could have done what he did, or cull a proportion of the success and attribute it to him, to me you start from the standpoint that the guy who did what it took to win championships was the best QB. Of course if it is truly a case of a team winning despite its QB, that needs to be considered. THAT is where stats come in, but to me there has to be overwhelming evidence of that QB being severely better in every way to overcome the fact that he was on the football field with a chance to make a play to keep his teams season alive, and didn't while QB A did.

 

[makewayhomer]

But I think the actual result is a better measure than stats, which are equally as subjective as memory. (Especailly to different eras)

Put it this way:

QB A played well enough that his team won 4 SBs in 6 years.
QB B never won a playoff game.

To me that adds up to QBA doing what needed to be done for his team to be Champions. (4 times is about 1000 times more compelling than one) QB B did not. Rather than try to judge by statistics whether someone else could have done what he did, or cull a proportion of the success and attribute it to him, to me you start from the standpoint that the guy who did what it took to win championships was the best QB. Of course if it is truly a case of a team winning despite its QB, that needs to be considered. THAT is where stats come in, but to me there has to be overwhelming evidence of that QB being severely better in every way to overcome the fact that he was on the football field with a chance to make a play to keep his teams season alive, and didn't while QB A did.

we're going in circles at this point.

if you are going to use "team wins" as a metric in judging QB's, well, you are going to make terrible measurements. there is far too much going on elsewhere on offense, on defense, on special teams, and in coaching to simplify it to the level you're talking about.

a QB is the most important player, yes, but he is still just a 1 player. lets go back to the Wes Welker example.

last year he was on a terrible team.
this year he could very well contribute in a big way to a SB win.

was he a "loser" last year and a "winner" now?

 

[TruthSeeker]

I remember watching Bradshaw and my recollection now is that he had a few off the chart years. Great touch, great long ball, great game management. As someone pointed out, it was a long time ago, and maybe it is selective memory clouded by too much whiskey and other intoxicants. But I'm sticking by it

That's fine. My memories are definately hazy as well, although I don't have your excuses and I'm not yet ready to claim Alzheimer's.

 

[BWareofDWare]

Paolantonio is a moron. Where exactly are people rating Romo that he's considered overrated? In his first season as a starter he took his team to the playoffs, and led the league in Yards Per Attempt, which per ColdHardFootballFacts.com has shown to be the most relevant stat in terms of winning games. In his first full season as a starer he's on track to win the NFC East for the first time since 1995, and is second in YPA behind Tom Brady. If people were saying he's at Brady or Peyton Manning's level then yes you could say he's overrated, but I haven't seen that anywhere. Overall he's considered at that next tier of quarterbacks, and arguing anything else is ridiculous.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

There are many of us who believe SB wins are very over-rated. And then there are the Andy Johnson's of the world who believe the opposite. That's OK; opinions vary widely even amongst fans of the same team.

Well, if SB wins are over-rated, what then is the purpose of the game, of the season being played?

 

[makewayhomer]

Well, if SB wins are over-rated, what then is the purpose of the game, of the season being played?

SB wins are a legit way to judge team success. it's a dumb way to judge individual success.

 

[Ring 6]

we're going in circles at this point.

if you are going to use "team wins" as a metric in judging QB's, well, you are going to make terrible measurements. there is far too much going on elsewhere on offense, on defense, on special teams, and in coaching to simplify it to the level you're talking about.

a QB is the most important player, yes, but he is still just a 1 player. lets go back to the Wes Welker example.

last year he was on a terrible team.
this year he could very well contribute in a big way to a SB win.

was he a "loser" last year and a "winner" now?

What is a better 'metric'? Good stats while losing?
The bottom line is this:
-A QB is the most important player on the field.
-While he may throw 40-50 passes in a game, probably 5-10 of them are going to make the difference in winning or losing. Especially when you are talking about winning playoff games and SBs, because those games will be close enough to be determined by that many plays.
-In judging a QB I don't really care how many stats he puts up in the other 35 passes compared to what he does on those 5-10. That is why some QBs consistently win, and others consistently do not, when their stats are equal.
-You cannot make this judgment based on one game (ie. the best QB doesnt win every game) but over the long term the guy who consistently wins is doing more to help his team than the guy who puts up stats but doesnt win.
-Terry Bradshaw won 4 SBs and during those season made the plays that were needed to win those games and SBs. It doesnt matter to me what was around him because they would not have won without him making those plays. It is foolish to suggest someone who has never proven they can play at that level on that stage would do the same thing.

How do you explain the fact that all of the all-time great winners were drafted by teams that stunk? Why didnt the 'stat guys' who were drafted by better teams ever win?
Over the length of a career a good QB will have opportunities to lead his team to Championships. The real good ones will elevate everyone around them to allow him that opportunity. NFL history is clear and obvious on this.
Great winning QBs have been the reason their terams became winners.

What you are suggesting is that winning or losing has absolutely nothing to do with your QBs ability to make plays that decide a game. NFL history proves this totally wrong.

 

[Ring 6]

SB wins are a legit way to judge team success. it's a dumb way to judge individual success.

Individuals make up teams. The LEADER of the team is the QB. The individual with the most impact on winning and losing is the QB. The success of the team is heavily reliant on the QB.

If you are judging team success, arent you judging the success of all of the indivduals that make up that team?

Are Championships a bad method of judging Michael Jordan?

The only reason to play games in the NFL is to win. You have to base any judgment on winning.

 

[Ring 6]

SB wins are a legit way to judge team success. it's a dumb way to judge individual success.

You never told me what your list of top 10 QBs are.
Would winning or losing have anything to do with it?

 

[makewayhomer]

If you are judging team success, arent you judging the success of all of the indivduals that make up that team?

yes. you are judging the success of ALL of them. do you seriously not see how that is different than judging ONE of them?

why didn't you answer my Wes Welker question?

 

[makewayhomer]

You never told me what your list of top 10 QBs are.
Would winning or losing have anything to do with it?

in no particular order:

Favre
Baugh
Elway
Graham
Marino
Montana
Tarkenton
Unitas

soon to be joined by Manning and Brady

the next group is probably

Aikman, Anderson, Fouts, Moon, Starr, Staubach, Tarkenton, Young

 

[Ring 6]

yes. you are judging the success of ALL of them. do you seriously not see how that is different than judging ONE of them?

why didn't you answer my Wes Welker question?

And over a career the success of the most important player on the team can only be judge by winning or losing.
Or are you the kind of guy who doesn't mind losing as long as you 'played well' and it was someone else fault.

Your Welker question was stupid. Unless you can justify how the guy who gets about 20% of the passes thrown to him is as important to winning or losing as the guy who throws 100% of them. Welker would probably never win a SB if he didn't have a winner playing QB for him, hence the entire discussion here. Teams win champiosnhips when they have championship caliber QBs. Championship caliber QBs win Championships, not thier supporting cast. Great supporting casts with QBs who are not winners, don't win Championships, and these facts hold true well over 90% of the time.

Now, you need to answer my question that I am asking for the 3rd time.
What is your list of the top 10 QBs, in order. (You can even put them in tiers instead of order)

 

[makewayhomer]

Your Welker question was stupid. Unless you can justify how the guy who gets about 20% of the passes thrown to him is as important to winning or losing as the guy who throws 100% of them. Welker would probably never win a SB if he didn't have a winner playing QB for him, hence the entire discussion here. Teams win champiosnhips when they have championship caliber QBs. Championship caliber QBs win Championships, not thier supporting cast. Great supporting casts with QBs who are not winners, don't win Championships, and these facts hold true well over 90% of the time.

so you're saying it's ok to judge QB's by rings, but not WR's? ok.

are there any other positions where it's ok to judge by SB rings?

 

[Ring 6]

in no particular order:

Favre
Baugh
Elway
Graham
Marino
Montana
Tarkenton
Unitas

soon to be joined by Manning and Brady

Well I dont think Sammy Baugh or Otto Graham can even be discussed because they played so long ago. So, I'll leave them out.

Can you explain why Fran Tarkenton is better than Troy Aikman or Roger Staubach?

How are Marino and Montana BOTH on the list? Montana simply won, Marino simply didnt. What is your criteria? If Montana gets no credit for winning 4 SBs, why isnt Steve Young ahead of him? The 49ers were a better offense in Youngs years than Montanas.

Why does Fran Takenton make the list and Terry Bradshaw not?
Tarkenton had years where his defense was the best in the NFL, but they didnt win. If Bradshaw is penalized for winning with a good D why isn't Tarkenton penalized for losing with a good D?

Shouldn't Ken Anderson be on your list? If winning is not a consideration, he may have the best stats ever when you compare them to his contemporaries.

What exactly has Fran Tarkenton, Brett Favre and Dan Marino done better than Tom Brady that would make them top 10, but Brady isn't?

I have no idea what your criteria is. In some examples you seem to be just looking at a stat book and taking the top guys, but in others you seem to credit winning. Is Troy Aikman not on the list because he didnt play for 20 years to compile numbers like Tarkenton or Marino?

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

SB wins are a legit way to judge team success. it's a dumb way to judge individual success.

Just so we're real clear here....

As Andy says, QB is the single most important roster spot on a team! Teams build around the men they have in these positions. While it is true that conventional wisdom has teams building defenses from MLB out, the team revolves around the man playing QB.

I've seen QBs who have literally carried teams on their back. I've seen QBs doing stuff they really had no business doing keeping their otherwise lousy teams in games they had no business being in. Billy Kilmer comes to mind.

I remember Jim Hart. He was a good QB. Put up decent numbers. Would usually give you a decent game. But just as Andy pointed out, if you followed the game like we did, and watched them you already knew the answer to the question that haunts this debate - Terry Bradshaw accomplished what he did, as opposed to Hart, precisely because he was Terry Bradshaw. The two were not interchangeable parts.

Because of this, I feel strongly that the Pittsburgh dynasty would not have been nearly as successful with Hart, as opposed to Bradshaw. In fact, it's possible they wouldn't have been a dynasty!

Putting up similar numbers does not translate into acquisition of intangibles that are requisite for winning big ones and achieving greatness.

Terry Bradshaw is recognized because he was Terry Bradshaw. Jim Hart is recognized because he was Jim Hart.

East is East, and West is West, and ne'er the twain shall meet.

 

[Ring 6]

so you're saying it's ok to judge QB's by rings, but not WR's? ok.

are there any other positions where it's ok to judge by SB rings?

You can judge anyone who clearly LEADS his team to Championships based on Championships.
99% of the time, those are QBs. Why?

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER ON THE FIELD WHO CONTRIBUTE THE MOST TO WINNING.

There are other great players who elevated their teams to championships that werent QBs, but all other positions have much less control over winning games and being the guy who has to make the play to decide the game.

Is that really hard to understand?
Do you disagree that the QB contributes the most to winning or losing?
Do you disagree that the QB is the leader of the team, and a team wins or loses as much by leadership as talent?
Do you disagree that,especially given parity, a GREAT QB should throughout his career be able to have season where he is the difference in who wins a Championship?
Do you disagree that almost every all-time winner started with an awful team?

 

[makewayhomer]

You can judge anyone who clearly LEADS his team to Championships based on Championships.
99% of the time, those are QBs. Why?

BECAUSE THEY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT PLAYER ON THE FIELD WHO CONTRIBUTE THE MOST TO WINNING.

There are other great players who elevated their teams to championships that werent QBs, but all other positions have much less control over winning games and being the guy who has to make the play to decide the game.

Is that really hard to understand?
Do you disagree that the QB contributes the most to winning or losing?
Do you disagree that the QB is the leader of the team, and a team wins or loses as much by leadership as talent?
Do you disagree that,especially given parity, a GREAT QB should throughout his career be able to have season where he is the difference in who wins a Championship?
Do you disagree that almost every all-time winner started with an awful team?

look, winning SB's is part of the equation. but to use it as the Holy Grail of measuring sticks is dumb.

in rating QB's, I dunno, it's maybe 10-15% of what I consider. thats just a rough idea of a QB's importance to a team

call offense 45%
defense 45%
special teams 10%

of the 45% for offense, I would maybe break it down as

all oline-20%
rb's-2%
wrs-3%
QB- 15%
TE-5%

but those are just rough guesses

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Here's the point that needs to be driven home on this thread.

Bradshaw won 4 in 6 years.

Aikmen won won 3 in however many years.

Elway won 2 straight before retiring.

Montana won - what - 3, 4? in however many years.

Trent Dilfer won 1 with a team (!) that was heavily oriented towards defense. Neither he nor they have been back.

McMahon won 1 in the same fashion with Chicago on a team noted for it's defense. And while they could, and did, score, neither he nor they made it back to the big dance.

The point is, the occasional journeyman will make it in when carried by a good team. However, without the star quality of the great QB, they won't make it back.

The great ones, on the other hand, know how to do it, respond accordingly, and invariably lead their teams back. Historically, that's how it's been done.

Now that I think of it, the argument that Bradshaw was little more than a "system" QB is patently absurd. You could make the same statement about Brady, but you'd likewise be wrong. You'd be wrong because their greatness allows them to translate onto the field what their coaches desire. That is one of the things that makes them great!

 

[makewayhomer]

The point is, the occasional journeyman will make it in when carried by a good team. However, without the star quality of the great QB, they won't make it back.

you mean, except for the 80's Redskins, who won 3 SB's with 3 different QB's

or the 86/90 Giants who won 2 with 2